: "To put at rest all doubts concerning the : applicability of the constitution to the District,: congress in 1871 specifically extended it thereto: [citing Downes v. Bidwell and 16 Stat. 419, 426,: Sec. 34]. Hence, the power of legislation in: Congress is not unlimited or arbitrary [citing: Curry v. District of Columbia, 14 App. (D.C.): 423] but is limited in general by the express: constitutional provisions [cites omitted]."

: 18 C.J., p. 1358, Sec. 11,: see also notes 93 and 93[a]

: : The pertinent sentence from 16 Stat. 419: now follows:

: "... [A]nd the Constitution and all the laws: of the United States, which are not locally: inapplicable, shall have the same force and: effect within the said District of Columbia: as elsewhere within the United States."

This makes perfect sense, as the D.C. actually belongs to the several states as the seat of their central government for the prosecution of wars and other dealings with foreign nations.We have suspected for some time now that the idea of separate legislation for the D.C., as a totally foreign venue to the several states in that context, was a misinformation or disinformation campaign to distract from reality, such as the contractual nature of most so-called federal legislation.Granted, there is separate legislation for military establishments which authorizes the services to enact regulations to certain ends, special legislation authorizing Agriculture and Interior to promulgate regulations for forestry and preservation of parks, and such like that, but to have that power over the lives of the American People in the D.C. is a little far fetched.This opinion does not, of course, extend to outside possessions and trust territories like Puerto Rico, N'r'n Marianas, etc.How're we doing so far. This opinion is just that, and is not backed by any research.